umraniye escort pendik escort
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
sikis
bodrum escort
Short Reads

Belgian Court of Cassation annuls decision prohibiting pharmacists from using Google Adwords

Belgian Court of Cassation annuls decision prohibiting pharmacists fr

Belgian Court of Cassation annuls decision prohibiting pharmacists from using Google Adwords

01.08.2018 BE law

On 7 June 2018, the Belgian Court of Cassation, ruled that a decision of the Pharmacists Association Appeals Council (Appeals Council) prohibiting pharmacists from using Google Adwords to offer over-the-counter (OTC) products violated Belgian competition law because the Appeals Council did not sufficiently justify why such a prohibition was necessary for health reasons. The Appeals Council must now issue a new decision.

The Pharmacists Association (Orde van Apothekers - Ordre des Pharmaciens) is a professional association of pharmacists. Membership is mandatory partly to ensure that ethical and moral standards are maintained in the profession.

In the case at hand, the Appeals Council held that using Google Adwords for OTC products (i) lured customers into buying pharmacy products, (ii) resulted in customers not being able to access better care within their immediate geographical location and (iii) amounted to a "commercial exaggeration"  contrary to the principles of honour and dignity, which lie at the core of the profession. The Appeals Council also held that the responsible distribution of medicine requires personal contact with pharmacists, which is displaced by the use of Google Adwords.

The Court of Cassation held that the decision of the Appeals Council violated competition law. It confirmed the applicability of competition rules to pharmacists, noting that despite their social role, pharmacists are involved in exchanging goods or services and are therefore 'undertakings' subject to competition law. In addition, the Court concluded that the Pharmacists Association is also subjected to competition law, even though it pursues a statutory and not an economic objective.

The  Court considered that the Appeals council decision was based on the material interests of the pharmacists and general notions on the way the supply of medicine should be organised economically. Through its decision the Appeals council restricted competition without providing specific reasoning why the complainant would – through the use of Google Adwords for OTC products – endanger the public interest in terms of public health or the ethical standards of the profession.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of August 2018. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. European Court of Justice dismissed Orange Polska’s appeal in abuse of dominance case
  2. General Court underlines importance of Commission's duty to state reasons
  3. General Court dismisses appeals by investor against power cable cartel fine
  4. Google receives a second record fine of EUR 34 billion for imposing restrictions on Android device makers
  5. European Commission issues a new Best Practices Code for State aid control
  6. District Court in the Netherlands rules on limitation periods in CRT case
  7. Court of Appeal in the Netherlands decides to appoint independent economic experts in TenneT v ABB

Team

Related news

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Collective action stopped due to lack of benefit for class members

Short Reads - On 9 December 2020, the Amsterdam District Court (the “Court”) declared a foundation inadmissible in a collective action regarding alleged manipulation of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other interest rate benchmarks. The foundation sought declaratory judgments that Rabobank, UBS, Lloyds Bank and ICAP (the “defendants”) had engaged in wrongful conduct and unjust enrichment vis-à-vis the class members.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
ECJ in Pometon: beware of too much info in staggered hybrid proceedings

Short Reads - In hybrid cartel proceedings (in which one party opts out of settlement), settlement decisions should not pre-judge the outcome of the Commission's investigation into non-settling parties. When the Commission publishes the settlement decision before the decision imposing a fine on the non-settling party, it must be careful in its drafting, the European Court of Justice confirmed. Furthermore, differences in the fining methodology applied to (similarly placed) settling and non-settling parties will have to be objectively justified and sufficiently reasoned.

Read more